If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Field Trials in as close as 1980 were easier than a weekend HT...Evolution of the sport is now 300 plus and everything in between...Ht's are headed that way...Why ? Dogs are better and training is better...90% of the dogs I use to run hunt and ran HT's ...they also ran FT's and SRS and any other dog game I could find ...most of them were MH/QAA...Cross training I feel makes for a balanced dog. It really bugs me that folks will bash any dog related sport...run what you want and be happy and enjoy what you do...Funny thing I just spent 2 weeks with the best amateur trainers of FT dogs at the Nat AM...you did not hear one word negative about HT. Why ? They are happy happy happy playing their sport and do not bother others who enjoy theirs. I judged in Corning Calif. this year..my co judge and I decided to do a challenging first series...we did what was for 90% of the handlers their first quad...there was alot of grumbling for sure...it was a land test with close to 60 dogs...we lost 5 dogs...the few that had problems tried to do the old standard of outside outside inside...I call it duck duck gooose they handled on at least one bird...those that read the test ran it by picking up a double on each side did great...oh and there was a double blind up the middle of the marks...when setting up a hard test I judge it like Olympic diving ....the harder the dive the easier the scoring....we lost over 50% of the dogs on the next 2 series...they were triples no blinds in one and a h2o blind in 1...go figure.....as for time management we were done 1/2 day before the other Master test...2 of the 4 marks were at the 150 mark and folks were proud that their dogs did it . Only complaint was that we had handlers put their ducks in a bucket UKC style...did this so we would not bother the handler working their dogs. Two maybe three people complained about that...I say run em long and run em short...the dogs that went out in the first series went out on the blinds...we all know blinds are a training problem not a test problem....I'm out

I hope the AKC master tests don't make their marks and blinds longer than about 150 yards. Otherwise the tests will simulate field trials with ridicules distances that no way resemble a day's shoot. It is so easy for handlers and trainers to participate and do well in field trials and then want to bring the garbage into hunt tests. Qualified judges shouldn't have to resort to long distances in order to test dogs at their level. Lets keep the master tests so that they actually are realistic to hunting scenarios. If you want to run long, stay in field trials.

To Cooper regarding his original post... he was concerned about marks and blinds longer than 150 yards. He was concerned that field trialers (handlers and trainers) would bring "the garbage" into hunt tests.

Cooper,

HT judges set up their master tests. The HT judges determine how long a mark or blind is. There are very few field trialers who judge hunt tests. Those who train and handle in field trials are not changing hunt tests. If you see any changes or if you are seeing some sort of trend to extend the distance in how HT master marks and blinds are being set up, those changes are being made by hunt test folks.

Your concerns about distances being increased may be valid, but placing the blame on field trialers is off base.

I would also mention that changes to the HT rules now state 150 yards vs 100 previously. I have already ran a variety of HT's where the marks where put out 150 yards or so, on grounds where they used to be 100. The goal was to help give HT judges the flexibility to utilize grounds better, however I do believe some judges are not just thinking 150 yard mark is necessary. FT's had nothing to do with this...

I hope the AKC master tests don't make their marks and blinds longer than about 150 yards. Otherwise the tests will simulate field trials with ridicules distances that no way resemble a day's shoot. It is so easy for handlers and trainers to participate and do well in field trials and then want to bring the garbage into hunt tests. Qualified judges shouldn't have to resort to long distances in order to test dogs at their level. Lets keep the master tests so that they actually are realistic to hunting scenarios. If you want to run long, stay in field trials.

Cooper, there are many differences between HT tests and FT tests beyond distance. Distance is not even the main difference. Distance just makes the rest of the factors harder.

But the real difference in the two games is the mindset you have when you step to the line. In a HT, you go to the line thinking, "what do I have to do to pass this standard". (you hear that question on this forum all the time ... "what do I have to do to get through ...".

In a FT, that question is not even relevant. Instead, you're asking yourself, "what do I have to do to be the BEST here today?". That's a HUGE difference in the way you approach the test AND in the way you approach training.

JS

ďDonít wave your phony patriotism in MY face! If you really love America, open your wallet and hire an American kid to build what you buy. Doug Fraser (paraphrased) 1980Real Americans buy American.

I would also mention that changes to the HT rules now state 150 yards vs 100 previously.

/Paul

Paul,

Do you recall how the new wording in the HT rules came about? I belong to two clubs who put on hunt tests. Both are members of the Master National Retriever Club. I don't recall that changing the wording in the HT rules was ever brought up and voted upon at the club level.

...2 of the 4 marks were at the 150 mark and folks were proud that their dogs did it .

Thumbs Up,
You said when you judged a Master at Corning, CA, 2 of your 4 marks were at 150. I am not faulting you for your test set up. You are a HT judge who used a longer distance than what has been typical. I am curious as to the "why" of the 150 for your test. Can you explain ? I assume you are not a field trialer trying to change hunt tests.

The Hunt Test Advisory Committee Sub Committee on Rules takes submissions from the HT community. Anyone can send them something they think needs to be changed. They compile a list of recommendations and submit this to Performance, who send their recommendations to The AKC Board. So the way I understand it, there isn't really a club vote.

Also changes can come directly from Performance.

When it stops being fun, I will find something else to do with my time and money.

The 150 was voted on and passed, I remember the ballot. As judges were stretching them well beyond 100yrd. when that was the standard. Of course they'll be stretching them beyond the 150yrds. they were already pass the old rule. The new wording just opened it up to even longer marks, next year it will be 200 and they'll push it longer, because it's a "should not" not a "will not" wording. Judges discretion IMO Bring them on, judges that need marks that long don't know how to put technics into their setup, give me a few easy straight forward 200 yrd marks, over close technical ones all day long. Distance does not a hard mark make

Last edited by Hunt'EmUp; 07-11-2013 at 02:18 PM.

"They's Just DAWGS"; "I train dogs, Not papers"
"Hunting is a skill to be learned whether you do it early or late it still needs to be learned"